Senate Republicans have used this type of filibuster 380 times
since the Democrats took over the majority in 2006. We've seen
filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, political
transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies -- you name it, there's
been a filibuster.

We've seen filibusters of bills and nominations that ultimately
passed with 90 or more votes. Why filibuster something that has
that kind of support? Just to slow down the process and keep the
Senate from working.

I saw the impact of these filibusters at the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. Forty-five senators pledged to filibuster any
nominee to head that new consumer agency, regardless of that
person's qualifications. After I left the agency, they tried to
hold Richard Cordray's nomination vote hostage until the Senate
agreed to weaken the agency to the point where it could no longer
hold the big banks and credit card companies accountable.

What she's saying is that Democrats would be able to achieve
their goals more quickly without a Republican filibuster, so
we're sure that gives her detractors some cause for alarm.